DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus EJAZ AHMAD KHAN

The decision dated 23‑5‑1984 recorded by the ‑learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has‑been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for being confirmed as Section Controller was accepted.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeal on the points decided by the learned lower Court, has made a miscellaneous application raising objection that no proper grievance petition was before the learned lower Court, inasmuch as it was not presented by the respondent himself and had rather been presented by his counsel. NLR 1985 Labour 36 has been relied upon wherein by analogy P L D 1980 S. C. 80 has been applied. It was held in the Supreme Court's ruling that grievance notice sent by the lawyer was not valid. The miscellaneous application of the appellant has been opposed by the respondent who has pleaded that he had been appearing in person before the learned lower Court but by mistake his appearance was not recorded. The contention made by the respondent can be proved by him, and disproved by the appellant by producing evidence. Since the appellant did not raise such an objection before the learned lower Court, no evidence was led by the parties. Both the counsel of the parties have agreed that the case be remanded for adjudication of the point.

3. If the point is decided by this Tribunal after allowing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the unsuccessful party will lose right of appeal. So setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for fresh decision after the decision of the point if the petitioner was present on the date of presentation of the grievance petition and either he himself presented the petition or in his presence the petition was presented by his counsel.

A.E.11373/Lb.P Orders accordingly.